2827
The Level of Implementation of Poverty
Alleviation Programs in Isabela, Philippines
Josephine R. Domingo, Georgina M Dioses, Melody E. Lim, Joan A. Tomas and Rhowel M. DellosaAbstract— This study aimed to determine the of level of implementations of poverty alleviation programs in Isabela, Philippines. It includes the determination of social, infrastructure and economic development and implementation programs of Isabela, Philippines. The test of relationship between the perception of the respondents and the profile is conducted to find out the possible association between the type of respondents and the perception. The result of the test is useful in determining what particular recommendations and suggestions can be made for the kind of respondents. Study showed that the assessment noted that status of the implementation of Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), Social Housing Program and Farm-to-Market Roads (FMRs) in Isabela was generally implemented effectively. Accordingly, these implied that the implementation and commitment of the identified programs/projects had positive effects in the lives of the respondents and certainly gave them chance to improve their daily living and their children may attain better quality and secured life in the future. In addition, the findings of the study revealed that on the implementation of 4Ps, the four (4) LGUs had weak result of implementation on “Economic Resources”, substantial efforts could be done to improve the implementation of the program through consultation with the beneficiaries to identify what better and relevant option/s can be executed toward economic resources program; enrichment/reinforcement of the existing capacity/capability building provisions stated in their ELAs; improvement of the One-Barangay-One-Product (OBOP)/One-Town-One-Barangay-One-Product (OTOP); strengthen collaboration with academic institutions in the locality; encourage membership in a cooperative; and build up partnership with agencies/NGOs.
Index Terms— Alleviation, Economic, Farm laborers, Infrastructure, Implementation, Social, Survey,
—————————— ——————————
1 I
NTRODUCTION Poverty has become a global concern due to the alarming increase of people suffering from poverty and hunger which causes malnutrition and the worst, is death globally. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), hunger is a condition in which people do not get enough food to provide the nutrients for fully productive, active and healthy lives. It is a form of food insecurity and if prolonged and severe, hunger could lead to malnutrition characterized by stunting or failure to grow, mental and physical retardation, functional deterioration even collapse, and unproductive adult lives.The quest of all nations around the globe is to alleviate the poverty of their people. However, most of the nations that belong to the developing countries were experiencing poverty because of competition and trade rivalry. The word poverty are described and studied by [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] that resulted to different reasons and factors that has congruencies with interrelated issues. These factors are reasons for inability to meet basic needs such as water, clothing, medication, shelter, education and food. And all of these issues are present in the Philippines.
The focus of the study is on Isabela region. A positive note that the Region’s poverty has declined to 16.5 percent in 2015 which was originally 22 percent in 2006. But this also means that 1 out of 6 families are below poverty line on this period. [6].
Today, Isabela is the top producers corn and second top producers of rice in the country. And agriculture is the primary source of living of people of Isabela. Since the researcher is familiar with Isabela, a study that assessed the implementation of programs to alleviate the poverty in Isabela, Philippines were conducted to find out the programs and how it is implemented and what are some opportunities of improvement to be considered.
2
R
ESEARCHP
ROCESSThe study assessed the level of implementation of poverty alleviation programs in Isabela. It determined the respondent’s profile, level of implementation on the poverty alleviation programs. It also analyzed the significant relationship of economic, social and infrastructure development with that of respondents’ profile. The study focused on the assessment on the level of implementation of poverty alleviation programs in the province of Isabela, covering social, infrastructure and economic development as observed by the respondents. The following are the possible beneficiaries of the study:
2.1 National Economic Development Authority (NEDA). NEDA is the leading socio-economic planning body of the country which is highly viewed as the authority in macroeconomic forecasting and policy analysis and research. Through this study, the agency can enhance appropriate poverty alleviation strategies which may serve as a source of ————————————————
Josie R. Domingo is from Isabela State University Georgina M. Dioses is from Isabela State University Melody E. Lim is from Isabela State University
2828
substantial information in future policy formulation/decision making.
2.2 National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC)
NAPC as the coordinating and advisory body performs oversight roles in the operation of the Social Reform Agenda (SRA) and guarantees that is integrated into the formulation of the national, regional, sub-regional and local development plans. This research may generate important data and information that may serve as basis in future policy and decision making.
2.3 Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)
DSWD is the lead implementer of the 4Ps, hence, the result of this study may help in strengthening the weakness/es of the program and may serve as a source of information for future decision/policy makings.
2.4 Department of Education (DepEd)
DepEd is considered the partner agency in overseeing the education aspect of the 4Ps. Through this study, the department can provide feedback that may be considered in addressing academic and academic-related issues and concerns for better implementation of the program and for future decision making.
2.5 Department of Health (DOH)
DOH is mandated to provide national policy direction and technical standards on health services and the partner agency of 4Ps along the health and nutrition aspect. This study therefore can be considered a significant input necessary to further enhance the implementation of the different programs.
2.6 National Housing Authority (NHA)
NHA is responsible in developing and implementing a comprehensive and integrated housing program. Through this study, the agency can be provided data and information that may serve as source in making relevant actions/approaches and may be of help to the national policy debate/formulation.
2.7 Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
DPWH is the implementing arm of the national government responsible in providing and managing quality infrastructure services responsive to the needs of the people in pursuit of national development. The result of this study may be considered as significant input that may serve in future policy debate/direction.
2.8 Department of Agriculture (DA)
DA is responsible for the promotion of the country’s agricultural development. It provides policy framework, public investment, and support services needed for domestic and export-oriented businesses. The result of this study can be considered a significant input and may provide feedback necessary to further enhance implementation of programs and projects.
2.9 Provincial Government of Isabela
The provincial government is the highest unit of local government which was empowered by the LGC 1991 to exercise general supervision over its component cities and municipalities. The result of this study therefore can provide a general scenario of the poverty alleviation programs in the province that may serve as the jumping board in improving the programs through formulation of policy/ies and as basis in future decision making.
2.10 Local Government Units (LGUs)
The findings of this study may create a general picture of the implementation of poverty alleviation programs that may serve as basis of policy, institutional or financial analyses, reforms and recommendation leading to the improvement of the programs. The LGUs may be provided with necessary inputs with regards to the extent of the implementation that may serve as source of information in setting priorities and targets.
2.11 Isabela State University (ISU)
ISU, as an academic institution is one of the implementing arm of the government. This study can provide information to Faculty which can serve as one of the guidelines in teaching good governance and strengthening the graduate programs, specifically Master of Public Administration and Doctor of Public Administration. Likewise, the results that may be identified with low level of implementation or even with the lowest mean rating may serve as a strong justification for ISU to conduct research and provide extension program.
2.12 The Beneficiaries/Recipients/Grantees of the Program.
This study may provide information to the implementers and other agencies concerned which may serve as source in improving the programs that may eventually benefit the beneficiaries/recipients/grantees and the community as well.
2.13 The Researcher
This study is significant to the researcher for she wanted to be part of the development of Isabela. As a government employee and public administration student, she believed that she’s one of the partners of the government in creating and causing positive change towards the realization of the goals of the government. She hopes that the findings of this study can be considered by the DSWD, NEDA, NAPC, DOH, DA, DPWH, NHA, LGU Officials and the Faculty of Graduate School of Isabela State University Echague (ISUE) Campus to further improve, support and implement desired services needed by the Isabeleños.
2.14 Future Researchers
This study may serve as useful reference for future studies considering other factors related to poverty alleviations.
3
R
ESULT ANDA
NALYSIS3.1 Profile of Respondents
The profile of the respondents is gathered. A total of 250 respondents are asked to answer the survey question. In terms of gender, 82.7% or 207 out of 250 are male and 43 or 17.2% are female. In terms of age, majority are in the middle age and adult age. Most of the civil status of the respondent are married (76%). Majority of the respondents had small number of children (2 children per family). With regard to the educational attainment, it seems that there was a very low percentage of college degree holders. With regard to income per day, majority of the respondents were below minimum wage earners
2829
3.2 Respondents’ Perception on the Implementation of
4Ps
The following table presented the summary of the assessment of the level of Implementation of 4Ps and corresponding analysis and interpretations.
TABLE1
RESPONDENTS'PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 4PS
Table 1 presents the respondents’ perception on the level of ―Implementation‖ of 4Ps, all the seven (7) indicators got a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖ with mean values of 4.13, 4.30, 3.58, 3.57, 3.94, 3.84 and 3.73 respectively. ―Health and Nutrition‖ ranked the highest while ―Economics‖, as the lowest. In general, the computed grand mean value was 3.87 having a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖ which implied that the respondents believed
that the different indicators studied were truly been implemented. It concurred with [1], [7], [8] and [9] that the implementation of the CCT/4Ps’ success were on education, health care and nutrition and household consumption, Dela [10] and [11] which aided and supported beneficiaries in attaining a better and quality living in the future. However, the implementation showed weaknesses. Those revealed weaknesses were in the areas of ―Economic Resources‖ and ―Community Development‖, thus, course of actions should be employed to improve this area. This was similar with the study of [1] and [7] that 4Ps has been less implemented on the areas of Economic Resources and Community Development, [12] 4Ps was moderately satisfied. Nevertheless, along the way of its implementation, improvement had been made; among those were the expansion of age bracket of children grantees from ages 0-14 it became 0-18, issuance of PhilHealth Card and implementation of College Scholarship under Pres. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino and the inclusion of rice subsidy under President Rodrigo R. Duterte. Furthermore, the results may be was affected by the responses of the respondents who were not 4Ps recipients whose judgments were based only on their observations and hearsays from among their relatives, friends and barangay folks.
3.2. 1.Education
As can be gleaned from Table 1, implementation of 4Ps in terms of ―Education‖ revealed that it is being ―Implemented‖ with a mean of 4.13. All the indicators under this were found being ―Implemented‖ also having a very close mean results ranged from 4.33 to 3.89. The highest which was the ―Enrollment of children 3-5 years to day care/pre-school‖ with a mean of 4.33 while the lowest was the ―Increased number of enrolment for 6-12 years old children‖ with 3.89. ―Enhanced basic education program of the Government‖ was the next highest with a mean of 4.23 followed by ―Transition of school children from primary to secondary school‖ with 4.22 and ―85-100% attendance of school children in school‖ as the next lowest with 3.96. This showed that the program’s objectives somehow had been met and all the respondents value education as key to human development which affirmed by the following studies: [13] the essence of development lies with human-capital accumulation, particularly, education, [14] educated citizens are essential for a productive society as a principle behind 4Ps, [10] and [11] 4Ps contributed greatly to the school’s performance indicators; and support beneficiaries in attaining a better living in the future, [16] 4Ps children beneficiaries had more interest in school and attending class regularly and the program achieved its objective in investing in the future of the children, and [17] 4Ps seemed to be superior than the Food-for-School-Program and supplemental feeding programs in addressing the chronic poor and is worth expanding on a sustained basis.
3.2.1 Health and Nutrition
2830
twice a year‖ with 4.18 as the lowest. The next highest was ―Pregnant women are getting antenatal and post natal care‖ with 4.34 followed by ―Assistance in hospitalization and medical maintenance of the families‖ with 4.32 and ―Presence of health preventive service and immunization health for children 0-5 years old‖ with 4.29. This finding was a manifestation of a very strong implementation of health and nutrition services, an indication that the program was able to realize its objectives and the additional rice subsidy helped them improve their food intake. This result validated the studies of [18] that the program improves the lives of poor families through cash interventions incentives, [16] 4Ps had helped improve the nutritional status of children, [14] this is to support the principle behind 4Ps that healthy citizens are essential for a productive society.
3.2.3 Medical
The three (3) indicators under medical revealed that it is being ―Implemented‖ with a mean of 3.58. ―Assistance in hospitalization and medical maintenance of the families‖ being the highest with 3.63 and ―Presence of medical facilities‖ as the lowest with 3.51, both got a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖. This good result was perhaps due to the issuance of PhilHealth Card, a socialized health insurance system for the constituents of Isabela that covered 100% free medical and hospitalization benefits to members with minimal contributions of P100.00/month for paying members and P100/year for indigent members under the Sponsored Premium Subsidy for indigents by the Municipal Local Government Units (MLGUs). It is a combination of a subsidized and revenue raising project, funds of which partly provided by the Provincial Government, from the Congressional Counterpart of the four districts of Isabela and from the contributions of the members (Isabela Province Official Website). It is also noteworthy that the province of Isabela, have a Provincial Hospital, the Gov. Faustino N. Dy, Sr. Memorial Hospital (GFNDMH) located at the capital of the province, Ilagan City and four district hospitals namely: Milagros Albano District Hospital (MADH), Manuel A. Roxas District Hospital (MARDH), Cauayan District Hospital (CDH) and Echague District Hospital (EDH) that strategically located in every congressional district to cater to the health needs of Isabeleños in areas I, II, III and IV respectively. Along with these hospitals are two station hospitals catering to inhabitants of the mountainous regions such as San Mariano Medicare & Community Hospital and the Palanan Station Hospital in the coastal area. Likewise, Sta. Maria, Delfin Alfano, Tumauini, Ilagan City (all in Area I), Quezon (Area II), Jones (Area IV) and Dinapigue in the coastal area have maintained an MLGU hospital that is integrated with their respective Municipal Health Offices (Isabela Province Official Website). In addition to this is the Southern Isabela General Hospital (SIGH), a government hospital located at Santiago City. However, all the LGUs under studied have no hospital, the residents usually go to nearby cities and municipalities for medical services and serious cases, hence resulted to low score in ―Presence of medical facilities‖.
3.2.4 Economic Resources
Implementation of 4Ps in terms of ―Economic Resources‖ revealed that it was ―Implemented‖ having an average mean of 3.57. Among the indicators, three (3) got a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖ and the remaining two (2) got ―Moderately Implemented‖. ―Support of LGU in production and marketing of products of 4Ps‖ revealed the highest with a mean value of 3.96 followed by ―Presence of livelihood program for member beneficiaries‖ and ―Presence of technical assistance to the family members‖, both got a mean of 3.60 then ―Sustained program for the economic resources of members‖ with 3.42. ―Membership in a cooperative in the municipality‖ revealed the lowest with a mean of 3.26. This result showed that this was the weakest area of the program wherein all the indicators got relatively low scores that truly speak of weakness. It matched with the findings of [1] and [7] that area on economic resources was less implemented and is congruent with [14] despite huge amount of budget spent towards development assistance, actual impact of projects to the poor was very little. However, ―Support of LGU in production and marketing of products of 4Ps‖ was a bit higher among other indicators which indicate that unquestionably the LGUs are committed and that their thrusts and strategies were along the needs of the respondents that helped them augment their daily expenses and certainly improved their living condition. These results confirmed the LGU’s promotion of local industry/products through One-Barangay-One-product/One-Town-One-Product and continuous efforts through technical assistance and livelihood program and relevant capacity building (LGUs ELA 2016-2019) which is in harmony with the Provincial Government of Isabela’s thrusts wherein they allotted P80 million additional fund for agricultural programs and projects which can cater to the financial needs of agri-micro-business operators such as fish ball vendors, vegetable sellers and other small and medium entrepreneurs (Isabela Province Official Website). ―Membership in a cooperative in the municipality‖ revealed the lowest, basically because membership is not mandatory, it is a free will of the beneficiaries to join or not in the cooperative. However, there are cooperatives in the LGUs/Barangays where the study was conducted.
3.2.5 Family Development Sessions
2831
importance of family development sessions such as seminars and trainings, particularly those on responsible parenthood and family development and planning. However, ―Proper reporting of concerned members‖ revealed as the lowest (having a mean result of 3.78), although it is not very alarming, still it denotes negativity. Hence, monitoring should be strengthened.
3.2.6 Community Development
The ―Community Development‖ obtained an average mean of 3.84 with a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖. Two (2) of the indicators under this got ―Implemented‖ and the other three (3) got ―Moderately Implemented‖. ―Increase community awareness‖ was the highest with a mean of 4.03 followed by ―Improvement of rural community‖ with a mean of 3.50, both got a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖. Next is the ―Improvement of physical facilities‖ with a mean of 3.25 then ―Existence of more entrepreneur and business establishments‖ with a mean 3.08 and the lowest is ―Development of income-generating program‖, these indicators got a qualitative description of ―Moderately Implemented‖. This area posted positive effects of the program not only in the lives of the recipients but as well as in the community having ―Increase community awareness‖ ranked the highest. However, ―Development of income-generating program‖ scored the lowest, this is similar with [1] Nevertheless, programs along with this has been implemented (LGUs ELA 2016-2019).
3.2.7 Governance
On ―Governance‖, it incurred an average mean of 3.73 with a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖. Of which four (4) of its indicators incurred a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖ which includes: ―Improvement of health and sanitation program‖ ranked the highest with a mean of 4.10 followed by ―Strengthen family ties and community participation‖ with 3.96 then ―Improvement of social awareness and corporate responsibility‖ with 3.61 and ―Improvement of policy implementation and effective decision-making‖ with 3.54. The lowest is ―Improve economic stability thru corporate planning‖ with 3.44 or ―Moderately Implemented‖. These data mean that the program was appreciated and the respondents believed that the implementers and other players involved are on the right track in the implementation of the program. Yet, it is not perfect, but along the way, the beneficiaries/grantees truly felt the assistance given to them and certainly gave them chance to improve their life especially their children’s future. At the same time, respondents who were not 4Ps recipients somehow felt also the good effects of the program. This result manifests public participation, engagement and accountability which denotes that there is good governance which confirmed the following studies: [19] that inefficiency and failure of traditional social assistance programs in reaching the poor is also due to governance and accountability issues, [20] leadership is central to effective and sustainable implementation of programs, projects, and activities of the government. It is worthy to mention that the provincial government of Isabela has bagged various regional and
national awards on different categories as proof of its good governance/housekeeping (Isabela Provincial Website).
3.3 Respondents’ Perception on the Implementation of
Social Housing Program
The following table presented the summary of the assessment of the level of Implementation of Social Housing Program and corresponding analysis and interpretations.
TABLE2
RESPONDENTS'PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM
2832
none of them benefitted from this program, their responses were based only from observations/hearsays from/among their relatives/friends because the location of the Core Shelter of LGUs Gamu, Naguilian and San Guillermo was not covered by the study while LGU Luna has no Core Shelter program.
3.3.1 Selection of Beneficiaries
This area obtained the highest among the indicators, having five (5) of which three (3) of its indicators got a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖ which includes ―Coordination with LGUs‖ with a mean of 3.76 as the highest, followed by ―Families under poverty line‖ with 3.54 then ―Consideration of economic condition of beneficiaries‖ with 3.53. The lowest is ―Careful screening of beneficiaries‖ with 3.42 and it is ―Moderately Implemented‖. Coordination with LGUs‖ revealed the strongest indicator which manifests people’s trust and confidence to their local executives that speak of good governance, indicative of strict implementation of rules and regulations that are stated in the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992. ―Families under poverty line‖ and ―Consideration of economic condition of beneficiaries‖ obtained close mean results which is a manifestation that this indicators were truly applied that are explicitly stated in LGUs Guidebook for Local Housing Project/Program. ―Careful screening of beneficiaries‖ obtained the lowest may be because none of the respondents were benefitted from this program which affected their responses. This is to support the following findings: [21] strict implementation of the selection procedure must be enforced to realize the objectives of the housing project, [22] the current system of low-income housing assistance gives considerable subsidies to many people while others who are equally poor were not given and [23] the government’s housing program provided implicit and explicit subsidies but do not reach the target clientele, the low-income households.
3.3.2 Accessibility of Social Housing
This area revealed as the next highest with an average mean of 3.53 and a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖. The highest indicator under this is ―Availability of electricity‖ with 3.95 followed by ―Near to public market‖ with 3.62, both were ―Implemented‖. The other three (3) got ―Moderately Implemented‖ namely: ―Near to workplace‖ followed by ―Availability of potable water‖ and ―Availability of transport vehicle‖ with a mean values of 3.47, 3.45 and the lowest is 3.15 respectively. This result implied that these indicators were implemented because it had direct impact on health and living condition of the beneficiaries that were stipulated in LGUs Guidebook for Local Housing Project/Program. This was in consonance with the UN Habitat Agenda that adequate shelter has been defined as: ―more than a roof over one’s head‖, it meant physical accessibility, adequate security of tenure, structural stability and durability, adequate lighting, heating and ventilation, adequate basic infrastructure such as water, sanitation, and waste management facilities, suitable environmental quality and health factors and adequate and accessible location with regard to work and basic facilities. However, ―Near to workplace‖, ―Availability of potable water‖ and ―Availability of transport vehicle‖ found to be
―Moderately Implemented‖. This matched with the findings of [24] that most of the housing problems were caused by poor location of housing projects.
3.3.3 General Consideration
The ―General Consideration‖ obtained an average mean of 3.42 with a qualitative description of ―Moderately Implemented‖. ―Hazard free location‖ posted as the highest with a mean of 3.74 followed by ―Cultural consideration‖ with 3.66, both has a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖. The remaining three (3) got a qualitative description of ―Moderately Implemented‖ namely, ―Proximity to institutional buildings and services‖, ―Proximity to public places‖ and ―Economic opportunity‖ (the lowest) with a close mean of 3.26, 3.23 and 3.20 respectively.
This area scored the lowest basically due to the fact that the respondents were not recipients of the program, thus, their responses were affected. This supported the study of [24] that most of the housing problems were caused by poor location of housing. The two highest indicators were ―Hazard free location‖ ―Cultural consideration‖ which implied that the housing location is safe and the general consideration was implemented which was in accordance with the LGUs Guidebook for Local Housing Project/Program and UN Habitat Agenda.
3.3.4 Design and Construction
Data revealed that this area was ―Moderately Implemented‖ with an average mean of 3.49. ―Legal and technical consideration‖ obtained the highest with a mean of 3.69 followed by ―Cultural differences considered in the design‖ with 3.52, both got a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖ while ―Cost effective and efficient design‖ and ―Low-cost but durable building‖ both got 3.46 and the lowest was ―Proximity to other basic social services‖ with 3.30, all the three got ―Moderately Implemented‖.
―Legal and technical consideration‖ obtained the highest followed by ―Cultural differences considered in the design‖ which was a manifestation that the implementation was in accordance with the LGUs Guidebook for Local Housing Project/Program. ―Cost effective and efficient design‖, ―Low-cost but durable building‖ and ―Proximity to other basic social services‖ was a bit lower may be due to the fact that most/all of them had not yet seen the houses because none of them was a beneficiary. Moderate implementation were found on ―Cost effective and efficient design‖, ―Low-cost but durable building‖ and ―Proximity to other basic social services‖ This supported the study of [24] that some of the housing problems were caused by small housing structures, whereas others were due to the poor housing material, and others are caused by poor location of housing projects.
3.3.5 Social Responsibility
2833
study of [21] housing project promotes neighborhood and social interactions among the residences.
―Beneficiaries properly maintained the housing unit‖ is the highest with 3.48 followed by ―Terms and conditions are clearly understood by beneficiaries‖ with 3.46 and ―Social responsibility generally accepted by the beneficiaries‖ with 3.45. This result matched with [25] that the beneficiaries of the Social Housing Program experienced convenient living prior to the proper implementation of the policies. This was an indication that the beneficiaries’ commitment truly understands the rules and regulations of the program.
3.4 Respondents’ Perception on the Farm-to-Market
Roads
The following table presented the summary of the assessment of the level of Implementation of Farm-to-Market Roads and corresponding analysis and interpretations.
TABLE3
RESPONDENTS'PERCEPTIONONTHEIMPLEMENTATION OFFARMTOMARKETROAD
This program obtained a grand mean value of 4.00 with a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖. The area of ―Pre-Construction‖ revealed to be higher with an average mean of 4.11 while ―Construction‖ with 3.80, both got a qualitative description of ―Implemented‖. All the indicators of the two (2) areas were ―Implemented‖. This data complemented with the result of ―Awareness‖. Generally, the result implied that the different indicators had been taken into consideration in the implementation of the program which is an indication that the program’s objectives have been met wherein the respondents were truly benefitted and it somehow helped to improve their living conditions as well as
the economy of their locality because infrastructure has critical importance in catalyzing development [26], through farm infrastructure, the farm productivity was improved [27] infrastructural development leads to poverty reduction [28].
3.4.1 Pre-Construction
As can be gleaned from the table above, implementation in terms of ―Pre-Construction‖ revealed to be ―Implemented‖ in all of its indicators having ―Proper coordination of LGUs and other agencies concerned with the affected communities‖ as the highest with a mean of 4.32 and ―Plans are clear and understood by the beneficiaries‖ as the lowest with 4.00. The next highest is ―Community meetings and information dissemination about the projects‖ followed by ―Proper selection of project site and network of farm-to-market‖ then ―Careful study and consideration of environmental, socio-cultural and economic aspect of the projects‖ and ―Consultation with the project beneficiaries and consideration of affected areas‖ with mean values of 4.14, 4.11, 4.05 and 4.03 respectively. The result was an indication that the implementation of the projects was properly coordinated considering all the necessary steps and factors and was in accordance with the mandates of the government, specifically AFMA and PRDP. Hence, the good results was obtained and the targeted beneficiaries were truly benefitted, a sign that the implementation had generally met its objectives which brought economic growth and development. This result supported the findings that infrastructure is a building block to poverty alleviation [29] the physical infrastructure was considered to be a precondition for industrialization and economic development [30]; its importance for sustained economic development is well recognized, its performance is largely a reflection of the performance of the [31]; national competitiveness was influenced basically by the level of institutional development and infrastructure which was determined mainly by the quality of roads, railroad infrastructure, air transport and electricity supply [32]; development of transport and trading infrastructure/networks (rural roads and markets) had significant positive impact on income, consumption and poverty alleviation [33]; increase in the net income of project beneficiaries after the implementation of development projects had direct impact, specifically socio-economic [34]; among the project interventions, FMRs appeared to have the most significant impact on the communities [35].
3.4.2 Construction
2834
These denoted that all the necessary steps and factors were taken into consideration and is in accordance with the mandates of the government, specifically AFMA and PRDP. [36] mentioned that the DA and its attached agencies were given increase in public funding over the past seven years (2005–2012). Hence, major infrastructures (farm-to-market roads) were provided for the crops sector. Also he mentioned that public goods that do show evidence of impact on agricultural incomes and productivity are infrastructure such as roads, ports, electrification (under other infrastructure).
3.5 Significant Relationship Between the Perception
Respondents to the Implementation of 4Ps of When Grouped According to Profile.
Table 4 presented the relationship between the perception of respondents to implementation of 4Ps when grouped according to profile.
TABLE4
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PERCEPTION OF RESPONDENTS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF 4PS WHEN GROUPED ACCORDING TO PROFILE
It can be observed in the above table that gender was positively related with level of awareness on medical program (r-val = .132, p-val = .037). This showed that more men were more aware on the implementation of medical programs. This was may be due to the fact that there were more male respondents than female (Table 1). Gender had no relationship with other programs. Income (r-val = .136, p = .031) of the participants is positively related with their level of awareness on governance. This meant that low level income earners (below minimum wage 154 or 61.6% of the total population) were more aware on governance because out of the 250 respondents, 104 are 4Ps recipients wherein their income qualified under the criteria in the selection of 4Ps. It was also reflected that age, civil status, number of children, educational attainment, and occupation had no significant relationship to any of the programs on education, health and nutrition, medical, economic resources, family development, community development and governance. This supported the findings of the Sudan Integrated Food Security Information for Action (SIFSIA), that poverty is also correlated with gender. Also, the study of [18] revealed that the sex/gender, education and income variable showed significant relationship to the
personal outlook of the respondents. This meant that the null hypothesis of no significant relationship in the perception of respondents to implementation 4Ps when grouped according to profile was rejected because significant relationship was revealed in some of its indicators.
3.6 Relationship Between the Perception of
Respondents to the Implementation of
Social Housing Program When Grouped According to Profile
Table 5 presented the relationship between the perception of respondents to implementation of social housing program when grouped according to profile.
TABLE5
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PERCEPTION OF RESPONDENTS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM WHEN GROUPED
ACCORDING TO PROFILE
2835
implementation of Social Housing when grouped according to profile was rejected because significant relationship were revealed in some of its indicators.
3.7 Relationship Between the Perception of
Respondents to the Implementation of
Farm-to-Market Roads When Grouped According to Profile
Table 6 presented the relationship between the perception of respondents to implementation of farm-to-market roads when grouped according to profile.
TABLE6
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PERCEPTION OF RESPONDENTS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF FARM-TO-MARKET ROADS WHEN GROUPED
ACCORDING TO PROFILE
It can be observed in the above table that all profile variables are not significantly related with pre-construction. However construction was related with gender (r-val = .152, p-val = .016,) educational attainment (r-val = .146, p-val = .021), income (r-val = .192, p-val = .002), and occupation (r-val = .179.35, p-val = .006). The results implied that gender, educational attainment, income and occupation of the respondents had impact on their evaluation. This meant that the null hypothesis of no significant relationship in the perception of respondents to implementation of Farm-to-Market Roads when grouped according to profile was rejected because significant relationship was revealed in some of its indicators. This supported the findings of the Sudan Integrated Food Security Information for Action (SIFSIA), that poverty was also correlated with gender; occupation and education.
4
C
ONCLUSIONThe implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (formerly MDGs) has encouraged its localization in the Philippines which directed the national policies to meet the different international goals. The government implemented national policy framework through the implementation of various programs in combatting poverty and poverty-related concerns. Hence, three (3) poverty alleviation programs were utilized in this study: The implementation of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), the Social Housing Program and the Farm-to-Market Roads (FMRs). Generally, this study endeavored to assess the extent of level of implementation of the 4Ps, Social Housing and
Farm-to-Market Roads in Isabela. In order to attain the overarching objective of the study, the descriptive and inferential methods of research were applied. The respondents were the heads of households with at least two (2) children residing in the barangay where the municipal hall is located. These were determined using the purposive proportional sampling formula and random sampling was applied in selecting the sample respondents. The study employed a pre-tested survey questionnaire as its instrument consisted of four (4) parts. The respondents was dominated by males ages 51 and above, married with two (2) children, high school graduates whose income per day was at the level of below minimum wage and working as farm laborers or agriculture-related work. Majority of them were not 4Ps recipients (146 or 58.4%), none of them benefits from the Social housing Program but all of them received and/or benefitted from the Farm-to-Market Roads.
On the analysis of the results on ―Awareness‖ of the poverty alleviation programs, 4Ps by at large were perceived as ―Aware‖ (Children of 0-5 years old shall get regular preventive health check-us and vaccines as the highest) , the Social Housing Program was ―Moderately Aware’ (Core Shelter housing Assistance as the highest) and the Infrastructure Development as ―Aware‖ (Farm-to-Market Roads as the highest). Along with the ―Implementation‖, 4Ps generally perceived as ―Implemented‖, all the seven (7) indicators got ―Implemented‖, ―Health and Nutrition‖ ranked the highest followed by ―Education‖. On the other hand, weaknesses were found in the area of ―Economic Resources‖, it was pulled down by the indicator ―Membership in cooperative in the municipality‖. As to the Social Housing Program, it was ―Implemented‖ but revealed as the weakest among the programs studied. Among the five (5) indicators, ―Selection of Beneficiaries‖ topped it followed closely by ―Accessibility of Social Housing‖, both were ―Implemented‖. Furthermore, the weak implementation was found on ―General Consideration‖ placed to the bottom as ―Moderately Implemented‖ with ―Economic opportunity at housing site‖ dragged down its score. On Farm-to-Market Roads, it was ―Implemented‖ and found to be the strongest among the program studied. The ―Pre-Construction‖ got the lead (Proper coordination of LGUs and other agencies concerned with the affected communities as the highest) and ―Construction‖ on the least with ―Design and construction methodology are properly followed as per plan‖ lugged down its score. Lastly, on the assessment whether there was a significant relationship between perception of the respondents when grouped according to their profile, results showed that in some indicators of the different areas of the three (3) programs that there was statistically relationship between the perception of the respondents when grouped according to their profile therefore leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis in some of the profile.
R
EFERENCES[1] Domingo, J. R. ― Implementation of Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) in the Municipality of Echague, Isabela‖, 2017 [2] United Nations Development Program.. ―Towards Human
Resilience: Sustaining MDG Progress in an Age of Economic Uncertainty‖, 2011
2836
[4] Bennagen, P. C. ― Anti-Poverty Programs. The Social Reform Council and National Anti-Poverty Commission‖, 2000
[5] Fernandez, D. C., & Salgado, J. A. Economic Crisis, Poverty and Social Policy in Mexico. SAGE, 2013
[6] PSA. ―Family Income Expenditure Survey. PSA. Retrieved from Family Income, Expenditure Survey‖, 2015
[7] Bonifacio, L. ―Assessment on the Implementation of Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) in the Municipality of Ballesteros‖Cagayan, 2016
[8] Leroy, J. L., Ruel, M. T., & Verhofstadt, E. ―The Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes on Child Nutrition: A Review of Evidence Using a Programme Theory Framework‖. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 2009
[9] Rawlings , L. B., & Rubio, G. M.‖ Evaluating the Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs‖ The World Bank Research Observer, Volume 20, Issue 1, 29-55, 2005
[10] Dela Torre, B. O. ― Financing Education Through the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps)‖, International Journal of Humanities and Social Studies, 2016
[11] Velarde, R., & Fernandez, L. ― Welfare and Distributional Impacts of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program‖. Philippines, 2011 [12] Galzote, R. ―Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) in the
Municipality of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan‖, 2015.
[13] Liu, M., & Ling, H. ―The Role of Education in Poverty Eradication and Economic Development‖. China, 2016
[14] Losañes, C. L., Nercesito, R. M., Virador, M. A., & Co, F. F. ―A Propensity Scores Method and Logistitic Regression Analysis of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program in the National Capital Region, 2017.
[15] Fernandez, D. C., & Salgado, J. A. ― Economic Crisis, Poverty and Social Policy in Mexico‖. SAGE, 2013
[16] Frufonga, R. F. ―The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) in Iloilo, Philippines‖. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Vol. 3, No. 5., 2015
[17] Manasan, R. G. ―Reforming Social Protection Policy: Responding to the Financial Crisis and Beyond‖. PIDS, 2011
[18] Almazan, J. ―Influence of Conditional Cash Transfer Program to the Living Condition of the Households‖ International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. Scientific & Academic Publishing. p 173-178, 2014
[19] Orbeta, A. C., & Paqueo, V. B. ―Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program: Boon or Bane?‖ Philippines, 2016
[20] Brillantes, A. B., & Fernandez, M. T.‖Restoring Trust and Building Integrity in Government: Issues and Concepts in the Philippines and Areas for Reform. ―Philippines: International Public Management Review, 2011
[21] Javonillo, E. A. ― Assessment of the Implementation of Subsidized Housing Program in Cordon, Isabela‖. Isabela, Region 2, 2016 [22] Olsen, E. O. ―Alleviating Poverty Through Housing Policy
Reform‖. Virginia, 2014
[23] Llanto, G. M., & Orbeta, A. J. ―The State of Philippine Housing Programs: A Critical Look at How Philippine Housing Subsidies Work‖. Philippines: PIDS, 2001
[24] Manomano, T., & Tanga, P. T. ― Housing Problems and Programs in South Africa: A Literature Review‖ ,2016
[25] De La Salde , E. D., Espino, L. C., Andamon , C. C., & Arenas , F. A. ―Social Housing for the Poor in Davao City, Philippines‖, British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences ISSN: 2046-9578, Vol.15 No.II 2013.
[26] Edmonds, C., & Medina, S. ‖Defining an Agenda for Poverty
Reduction. Proceedings of the First Asia and the pacific Forum on Poverty‖ Volume 1 (p. 345). Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2002.
[27] Morales, S. D. ―Predicaments of the Rural Settlers‖. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: National Bookstore, 2000
[28] Ogun, T. P. ―Infrastructure and Poverty Reduction: Implications for Urban Development in Nigeria, 2010
[29] Pouliquen, L.‖ Infrastructure and Poverty‖ .World Bank, 2000 [30] Sawada, Y. ―The Impacts of Infrastructure in Development: A
Selective Survey‖,Tokyo Japan, 2015.
[31] Singh, S., Batara, G. S., & Singh, G. ―Role of Infrastructure Services on the Economic Development of India‖. India, 2007
[32] Palei, T. ― Assessing The Impact of Infrastructure on Economic Growth and Global Competitiveness‖ 2nd Global Conference on Business, Economics, Management and Tourism (pp. 168-175). Prague, Czech Republic: Elsevier B.V, 2014
[33] Latif, M. A. ―Income, Consumption and Poverty Impact of Infrastructure Development‖,The Bangladesh Development Studies, 1-35, 2002
[34] Mina, R. L. ―Assessment in the Implementation of Development Programs in Isabela‖. Isabela, Philippines, 2012
[35] Setboonsarng, S. ―The Impact of Rural Infrastructure and Agricultural Support Services on Poverty: Case of Agrarian Reform Communities in the Philippines‖. Tokyo, Japan, 2008
